User talk:Cool ray man

August 2007
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Highly sensitive person. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Thank you. Gscshoyru 16:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

revisions on highly sensive people
(i'm not actually sure if this is what i am supposed to do to ask you about something, so if i am doing something wrong here is a preliminary apology) Hi, I made some revisions on the Highly Sensitive people page a while ago,, and you said that i needed to cite more reliable sources, which i understand, and you salso said that i should go to the discussion page if i wanted to change anything, and so when i did do that, you sent me another message saying that was wrong. So i'm kind of at a loss of what to do here. The page needs to be revised because it has incorrect information on it, but you aren't exactly alloweing me to do anything, so is there something I could do to make the revisions i want to happen become permanent?


 * Huh?
 * I haven't done anything to your contribution to the talk page, nor have I sent you any messages about it. Show me the diff of when I told you what you did on the talk page was wrong... you sure it wasn't the warn from the first change you made?


 * Oh, and please sign your posts with four tildes like this: ~ Gscshoyru 16:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't specifically to me, it was to my IP Address, I forgot to sign or didn't realize I was supposed to sign my name next to the contribution i left on the talk page, but here is the message Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Highly sensitive person. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Gscshoyru 16:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC) I also have the original message from when i revised the page instead of going to the talk page, but you know that one. I just simply want to revise the page though,, the information is almost and basically 100% incorrect, and this isn't an attack on the two providing the information, though they are exploting people with it, but they are giving out the wrong information and the research they use to prove their point has no relation to what they are talking about anyway, they are taking completely obvious research adn ideas and twisting it around to prove their point. So I just feel that is doing complete injustince to those who simply want to read about Highly Sensitive Poeple or even to find otu if they THEMSELVES are highly sensitive in the TRUE sense of the word. So is there something i could do becuase saying some useless stuff on the talk page, and actually revise the page, and have it stay permanently? Do i just need to leave the fact that Dr. Aron and Jim Hallowes are exploiting people out? Or what?


 * Your username changed it once, your ip changed it once. Both the messages I sent were directed at the change of the page, not the talk page. If it was about the talk page it would have been talk:highly sensitive person.


 * I also think you have a totally different definition... what you think is highly sensitive there is probably a different term for, and that's why you think the article is completely wrong. But that could just be me.


 * And you still didn't sign your post with four tildes: ~ . Please do so. Gscshoyru 16:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry about the tildes, I didn't know about that, thanks for saying something (and do i have to do that when I post on other pages too?). I tried to explain to you, what is going on though with the definition. It's difficult to really explain although not at all, Dr. Aron and Jim Hallowes (the ones who wrote the page in the first place keep in mind) are taking a simple condition that everyone has, and everyone else in the world besides them calls it SHYNESS, but these two are trying to tell everyone that if they are shy that they aren't REALLY shy they are instead HIGHLY SENSITIVE. Now does that even make any sense to you? No, but here is the reason for all of this, they take these Shy people and make them feel good about being shy by telling them about all these celebrites that are just like them and how they have some "finely tuned nervouse system" (which is a lie) and then they try to sell them all their Books, Tapes, Cd's, and CRUISES. And since these people feel great about themselves and think they are special, they buy these things, and make Dr. Aron and Jim Hallowes a ton of money. Good deal right? Only for them. High Sensitivity is the same thing as extra sensory perception, which is being studied by UCLA in their department of psychiatric and paranormal studies. So what these two are really doing is taking a relatively UNKNOWN condition which is scientifically described as Extra Sensory Perception and is considered a paranormal occurence, and twisting it around into something that will make them money, because they are trying to say that someone who is shy or introverted is highly sensitive. That makes no sense, but yet fools fall for their idea everyday, and even people who aren't buying their stuff are getting the wrong information. The reason i have a completely definition is because they have twisted it and changed the true meaning around so much that my definiton is completely differnt but the difference is that I AM RIGHT. True HSPs are David Viscott a worl renowned psyciatrist who was nomionated for a pulitzer prize, or Edgar Cayce another world renowned psychiatrist and physician, and here is one that we have ALL heard of, JESUS CHRIST. Dolly Parton, Elton John, and all those other shams that Jim Hallowes and Dr. Aron claim are HSP are NOT. So again, I AM ASKING YOU AND BEGGING YOU TO TELL ME,, what can i do to be able to make changes to the Highly Sensitive People page and have it stay there permanently? You still haven't answered me, and I am only trying to undo a wrong and provide correct information for all, which is what wikipedia is trying to do is it not?Cool ray man 17:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC) And by the way, wikipedia needs verification, and reliable resources, but what about Jim Hallowes who wrote the page in the first place? He has no college degree, nor is he a trained psychologist, psychiatrist, and most importantly HE HIMSELF IS NOT HSP, at least I myself am a true HSP, but Jim will tell you himself that he is not an HSP by his definition or the true definition, he calls himself a SELF proclaimed expert in this area so what credibility does he have on the issue?Cool ray man 17:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When posting on talk pages, or conversation pages, yes, you need to sign. On article space, you do not sign; signing on article space is bad.
 * To completely change an article in that fashion -- find a reliable source (see WP:V and WP:RS) for every point you claim, be careful to have a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and when you do make the change, state in the edit summary a short description of what you're doing. On the talk page, you should probably have a long description of why you're making the changes you're making. And, if no one argues, you're good to go. If someone does argue, contest your point with sources. And if the majority is against you, arguing reasonably, then bow to consensus, going crazy and attacking people might have unwanted consequences. It'd also be helpful if you stayed WP:CIVIL, as violating that could also end badly for you. Changes of this magnitude are uncommon, so you really should know your stuff before you try. Got that?


 * Also, being an HSP has nothing to do with being reliable in writing this article; indeed, if you are one, people might argue that you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) and ask you not to edit the article. What you need to right an article about something are reliable, secondary sources -- involvement in the content detracts, not enhances, your ability to edit, as it means you're more likely to have a POV. Gscshoyru 17:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well that works for me, but what about Jim Hallowes, the one who originally wrote the page? How are his sources credible or he himself credible? None of his sources are credible becuase they come from himeslf or that phony Dr. Aron. I feel if nothing else, the article should be deleated, as it is being used as a marketing tool for Dr. Aron and Jim Hallowes, and contains incorrect and unrelevent information. Jim Hallowes is a layman PROFESSING to be an expert in the field, yet he has no credibility whatsoever, he graduated from some art school which lasts for two years. His specialty is in advertising and ripping people off, not in Psychology or psychiatrics. So you let a self professed moron write an article about something he really knows nothing about taking irrelevant research and applying it to his article? Yet I, who actually know all about the condition, can't revise the article (for I did before cite completely credible sources, much more credible than the sources provided by Jim Hallowes) and provide the correct information? And where on the talk page were my revisions disputed? You seem to be the only one who felt that my revisions were not valid. You deleated my revisions before anyone had a chance to even see them. So I will do as you say, and write about what I am going to do on the talk page, but what i say is true, and both Jim Hallowes and Dr. Aron are self serving and unreliable and not credible sources. So why aren't you doing something about that? Every minute you continue to leave that incorrect information on wikipedia more and more people will be walking around thinking of themselves as knowledgable individuals, when in fact they have been given completely false and twisted information. Again, Jim Hallowes the writer of the original article is a self proclaimed moron with no credibility and no true knowledge on the subject. Would you let a surgeon who only knows about toes perform brainn surgery on you? I don't think so. Your own site, Wikipedia descibes Jim Hallowes perfectly...charlatan is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money or advantage by pretense.Cool ray man 17:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why am I doing nothing? Because there are nearly 2 million articles, and I can't fix every one. Also... the more often read are the more often fixed, by those who read them... so I doubt many people have been truly disillusioned by the article... and if they have, it's there fault for completely trusting what is hardly a reliable source.
 * If he's written academic papers, in a reviewed, academic journal... they kinda count as reliable sources. I don't know if he has or not -- I'm just saying. Did you read the links I gave you yet? People are not sources, writings are.
 * And you really don't need to give me the etymology of the word -- I know what charlatan means. Gscshoyru 18:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well you can fix this one, I wasn't asking you to fix nearly 2 million other articles, I was asking you to fix this one and showing you exactly HOW you can, I'm actually trying to help you, and so I've told you what is wrong with it SO FIX IT. Jim Hallowes is not a credible source nor is Dr. Aron, AND IT IS WIKIPEDIA'S JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AUTHOR'S OF THE ARTICLES ARE CREDIBLE, SO NO IT IS NOT THE PERSON'S FAULT FOR TRUSTING THE ARTICLE IT IS YOUR FAULT AND WIKIPEDIA'S FAULT FOR ALLOWING FALSE INFORMATION TO REMAIN AND TO BE ALLOWED IN THE FIRST PLACE. Jim Hallowe's has no academic papers printed or been in some academic journal mainly because of what i have been TELLING you, HE IS A SELF PROCLAIMED EXPERT. again,, think of it like this, would you want an expert on toes performing brain surgery on you? I sure wouldn't, so why would you let some unknowledgable and uncredible source write an article about something he knows nothing about? Jim has no credible sources or writings on the article either. So why don't you do something about it? Jim Hallowes is a charlatan,and if you know what it means, then do something about it, and take off his phony information, designed to promote himself and to gain more money, people haven't been able to edit the information they read, if they even know enough to edit it SINCE THE REASON THEY ARE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE IS 99% OF THE TIME TO LEARN, but they aren't able to edit it because people like you don't allow them too. Take off the article, go ahead, just don't let this criminal get away with this, but if Wikipedia and that INCLUDES YOURSELF, promotes charlatans and false information, then that is all I need to know. I have done my best to inform of this charade by a charlatan and to stop this fraud from continuing on your site as a means to decieve and exploit others feelings and natural way of thinking, and so now what are you going to do about it?Cool ray man 18:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not even going to answer that. All you seem to be doing now is trying to get me to react, which I shan't. There's no reason to shout. Wikipedia isn't perfect, nor does it say it is... and in fact it says it is not. That you have that much of an issue with this is laughable. Go make the changes, the way I told you to make, and stop yelling at me for not knowing everything about the articles you want me to know about. Gscshoyru 18:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why can't you just deleat the article then? That would solve this little problem you seem to be having quite rapidly. However, if you find no reason to do such an act, I do believe the article you told me to write earlier gives you all the reasons you need to deleate it, and maybe you didn't read it yourself, so i have copied and pasted the EXACT point i have been trying to make, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COI... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or self-promotion, or a vanity press. As such, it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. There is no reason to insult my for caring about people having false information, and that was completely uncalled for, and to accuse me of yelling is even more unfounded. I use capital letters to EMPHASIZE a point sir, as do most human beings, it is not shouting but simply making sure one take note of a certain point. Perhaps it would be in your best interest to quit assuming and to act on a violation of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. Surely if you are unwilling and incapable to emerge from your pouting, then there is someone above you whom I could talk with? I would be most obliged if I could have their name, and then I can stop yelling at you as you call it, Shakespeare, or perhaps if you shan't give up the name, you can actually do something.Cool ray man 18:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Capital letters is considered shouting, and is frowned upon. If you didn't realize that, then I apologize. Italics is much better for emphasis. And as for the rest, if you find a problem on wikipedia, and you want it fixed, fix it yourself! I've told you how, now go do! You continuing to berate me for something I had nothing to do with after I've explained what to do is unnecessary. I don't mind you caring about people having false information, but getting that irate about it and taking it out on me is unnecessary. Calm down, think about what you've said.
 * Also -- I have no ability to delete an article -- I'm not an admin. Not only that, I have no problem with it -- you do. If you want it deleted, read through the process at WP:AFD and follow it. Gscshoyru 19:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear sir, I clearly asked for a person's name above you, and that would be an Admin, so I would be grateful if you would please send me one.Cool ray man 19:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah. I missed that. I can't offer you a name, but I can offer a place -- here is probably where you would want to ask for help with fixing up the article. And as for deletion -- with an article around that long, no admin will delete without it going through WP:AFD so if you want it deleted, I suggest you do that instead. Gscshoyru 19:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I read with great interest the discussion of cool ray man and gschoyru and found gschoyru contradicting himself and avoiding the issue completely. I was a "victim" of Jim Hallowes for he portrays himself in a area of which he as absolutely no crediblity and in fact, got a two year degree in art, yet portrays himself as a "layman expert" in the area of psychology. I know because I attended a tuesday evening meeting with him in Newport Beach, California and all he did is promote his tapes, books written by his cohart and cruises and also asked for donations at the door. He knows nothing of this area but simply repeats over and over same message of which is a abuse of the word shy and then uses that term to make money for himself and depleting money from innocent people, who have either read about him on line or on wikipedia. It is a tragic thing to see that wikipedia,which states they provide information to the general public of which wikipedia does and will substantiate their facts before posting. It is clear reading the above that wiki does not do this for in gscshoyrus own words,,"so I doubt many people have been truly disillusioned by the article... and if they have, it's there fault for completely trusting what is hardly a reliable source. "...that is gschoyrus response  to cool ray mans attempts to point out that Jim Hallowes, is indeed a charlatan who has no credibility and no degrees and in fact calls himself a "layman expert". What this tells me is that wikidpedia will defy their own rules and allow anyone to print anything they want without any verification of the person nor does it even make an attempt to do the slightest research into such entries as Hallowes. Apparently, according to gacshoryru,, since there are so many passges wiki cant control them all, that means that if someone wants to believe what is on wikipedia, its the persons fault for doing so,,,hardly a excuse for ignoring wikis rules and guidelines and in fact, defying them altogether. I was insulted attending Hallowes scam and thats all it is. I have to wonder if gacshoryru conducts his life in going to people without credibility and degrees or any verification of what they profess to be and then states, "oh well, i guess its fine because they charged me less even though they arent licensed to do so". It will be interesting to see if and when gacshoryru decides to have a child and sends his wife to see a gardener to deliver the child because "its his own fault for believing him". Im shocked at gacshoryru and his responses for cool ray man was simply notifying wikipedia in the sake of a obvious charlatan using wikipedia for his own personal gain and doing monetary and psychological damage to his victims and he states that he cant do anything and tells cool ray to do so. Seems logical that gachoryru can indeed delete the home page of hallowes or at least look into the matter instead of bantering word games with cool ray man in a obvious attempt to defend his ego, WHERE IN FACT, he should putting the same energy into defending his ego into DEFENDING THOSE WHO BELIEVE WIKIPEDIA TO BE A RELIABLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION.
 * Uh huh.
 * Dude... please don't do that.
 * I hate to say it, but I seriously think the chance of you and Cool Ray Man being two different people is slim... the chance of you suddenly coming out of nowhere, having no experience with any other article than one, you suddenly come out and berate me, using the exact same sort of terminology as Cool Ray Man? Where did you suddenly, mysteriously, come across this conversation? Please don't don't do things like this, it's called sockpuppeteering (see WP:SOCK) and you can get in a lot of trouble for it. And people who believe wikipedia is a reliable source of information, should be set straight -- especially in terms of the less visited, more esoteric articles, that someone won't immediately see and fix. What, exactly, do you want me to do? I'm very confused here. What exactly are you angry at me about, originally? For saying that not that many people were disillusioned? That people know better than to trust wikipedia? Ok, fine, I retract them. But if you seriously expect me to research a topic that I know nothing about, and fix the article myself... then you have another thing coming. Please stop bothering me about this, and fix it yourself. And if you really have that much of a problem with me... then go to WP:RFC or something higher level and ask them what they think. Ok? But please, stop pestering me, and do something about the article that you think is so bad. Gscshoyru 02:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your use of term dude shows me that your level of education is highly suspect and you constantly assume things and constantly divert issues that are relevant by telling individuals on your site here that they "pester you, berate you, talk too loud, etc". Either you have a very low ego and even lower self esteem or both, but your function, according to wikipedia, is to be a volunteer individual using good judgement in dealing with "concerned" individuals trying to make wikipedia the best it can be as far as being credible and factual in its information and also asks for help from others to do this. What you do, going by your documented record as shown on your own site here, is to argue and assume and make incorrect and very judgemental assumptions, of which is noted your wrong on nearly every single one,,thus using wikipedia as your personal sounding board and simply "arguing and pestering and berating" people and the you turn around the say they are. Fact is,you are. Also, notice you made a retraction on your outlandish comment ",,"so I doubt many people have been truly disillusioned by the article... and if they have, it's there fault for completely trusting what is hardly a reliable source. "...that is gschoyrus response. Its obvious by your admittance to this being a absurd comment (totally contradicting wikipedias philosophy and guidelines), that you have trouble containing yourself and not able to handle simple discussions at hand and deal with facts. As far as your latest assumption im the same person as cool ray man is another ridiculous atempt on your part to salvage your down trodden ego instead of seeing that ITS POSSIBLE YOUR WRONG. I do not know cool ray man whatsoever and noticed your conversation by simply coming across your name on another "attack" you had with another individual on this talk back site and since I am a "victim" of Hallowes and his scam of which he is clearly doing, I read your discussion ,if that is a good way to put it, and simply retorted to your responses or lack thereof to cool ray man. I strongly suggest that since you appear to be a volunteer individual meaning well you might want to consider dropping your fragile ego and low self esteem and make an attempt to communicate and listen better which will better serve wikipedia and even yourself for the word assume can mean you are making a ASS out of U and ME.


 * Speaking of assuming... you assuming my education is suspect just because I said dude would fall under the same category. I'm done with the conversation, because what you are now doing is considered trolling. (WP:TROLL) You will get no more responses from me. Gscshoyru 17:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Revisions on Highly Sensitive People: Take Two
Why didn't you want people to see how helpful you were?Cool ray man 21:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Mostly? Because it was a trolling target, either by you (and if not, sorry for assuming bad faith), or by some other person. The stuff is in my history, anyway, so it doesn't matter. Gscshoyru 21:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I had no time to read all the discussion but just to say one thing: I'm going to create polish version of the term, I study psychology and gonna make HSP my Masters topic. English article is very good but there is to much about "shyness" in firs part what makes wrong picture for people who don't know more, and is generally confusing, therefore - should be removed. But, if you say, that: "A highly sensitive person (HSP) is a person who is in tune with their soul, sprituality, and emotions, and has extra sensory perception. These people have opened up themselves and freed their soul and thus they feel things that others are unable to." - that's totally not scientific mate. I found one page with similar understanding, but it's spiritual kind of seeng worl that I DO share in main part with you, but at the same time I'm aware that today psychology don't use word soul :) etc. It's pathetic, but it's true. So the article as it is - is good. Cheers, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond Marks (talk • contribs) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)